The authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to impose wage payments if no work was performed; disputes arising must be addressed under the Industrial Disputes Act.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

1. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 14.10.2024 in Misc. Appeal No.4/2024 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Ballari.

2. In terms of said order, the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ballari directing payment of wages is confirmed.

3. The petitioner has also sought to quash the recovery certificate marked at Annexure-C dated 15.05.2024 issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner.

4. In terms of the order dated 10.01.2024, the Regional Labour Commissioner has allowed the claim petition dated 10.06.2022 filed under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (‘Act, 1936’). The Regional Labour Commissioner has directed the petitioner-Company to pay Rs.3,74,15,171/- to 72 applicants towards delayed wages from May 2020 to November 2022 (31 months). In addition, directed the petitioner-Company to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to each of 72 applicants named in the order.

5. Certain facts are admitted. The respondents were the workers under the petitioner which is a Company involved in granite business. The petitioner had quarry licence issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka which was valid for 20 years from 17.09.1999. On 24.09.2019, the petitioner issued a letter suspending the quarrying activities and intimation was submitted to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur. On 08.11.2019, the petitioner claims to have filed Form No.1 intimating suspension of mining activities to the Director of Safety, Ballari on 01.04.2020.

6. The petitioner issued a general notice relating to stoppage of mining activity. Petitioner also issued a letter in Form-A to the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ballari.

7. The petitioner contends that it could not carry on mining activities as the licence to carry out mining activities was not renewed by the competent authority. It is urged that the order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner to pay the wages is without jurisdiction and the dispute if any has to be adjudicated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that respondents themselves have contended that for certain period, the petitioner-Company was closed and urged that same amounts to lay-off. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that it was a case of either a closure or a lay-off, then the dispute has to be adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Regional Labour Commissioner under the Act, 1936 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that assuming that the act of the petitioner-Company amounts to refusal of employment, still the Regional Labour Commissioner under the Act, 1936 does not get the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, as such dispute relating to refusal of employment has to be raised before the competent Labour Court.

10. It is also urged that admittedly 73 workers in whose favour, the order is passed to pay the wage for 31 months, did not work for 31 months and the Act, 1936 does not apply in such a situation and the provisions of the Act can be invoked only if the employees had worked and wages are not paid or short paid or paid belatedly.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would urge that the Regional Labour Commissioner and the learned District Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the provisions of the